RUTHFULLY YOURS

Judaic Theology Equivalent to Islamic Theology on Calls for Violence? — on The Glazov Gang
by Jamie Glazov
It doesn’t get much hotter than this on Frontpage’s debate program.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/06/08/lady-gaga-islamic-violence-and-double-standards-on-the-glazov-gang-2-1/

Illinois is the state of Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Emanuel Rahm, Sen. Dick Durbin, Rod Blagojevich, Mel Reynolds the Congressman found guilty in 1995 on state counts related to having sex with a minor. Sentenced to five years. Then found guilty in 1997 on 15 federal counts regarding actions during campaigns for Congress. Sentenced to six and a half years. President Clinton commuted his sentence in 2001.

BUT ILLINOIS HAS SOME REAL STARS: SENATOR MARK KIRK, CONGRESSMAN JOE WALSH….TODAY’S STAR IS

Friedman for Senate | Dr. Arie Friedman for Illinois Senate District 29
www.friedmanforsenate.com/
Welcome to the site of the Friedman for Senate Campaign. Dr. Arie Friedman is running for State Senate, Illinois District 29.

http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/too-much-information-just-shut-up

“The enemy is prepared to meet our advertised assaults on his bases of operations and facilities. He is not cowering or scurrying away. He doesn’t care how many civilians die or how many of their own jihadist number are “martyred,” but he does care greatly about killing as many Americans and Jews as he can in the process. He has also studied Vietnam and learned more from that experience than have we, and he learned how to manipulate the US media to achieve the same results.”

“Loose Lips Sink Ships!” posters warned during WWII. Today, secrecy has no cachet. In 2010, for instance, we heard months of public discussion of detailed plans for the upcoming Kandahar campaign to root out the Taliban. Administration functionaries publicly elaborated, talking heads argued, and retired officers analyzed the strategy, tactics, troop strengths, timelines, munitions, targets, objectives, outcomes, exit strategies of the campaign.

President Barack Hussein Obama is obsessed with exit strategies from Iraq and Afghanistan, regardless of reality on the ground or consequences-and blabs about them into every microphone he can find. Exit strategies, for God’s sake! What kind of insanity is this?

We’ve been barraged with public discussion on Iran, and leaks by the Obama Administration of Israel’s secret plans to stop Iran’s development of nuclear bombs. Do we wonder that the Israelis don’t trust our government and decline to tell us what they plan to do?

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/302031/obamas-third-party-history-stanley-kurtz

On the evening of January 11, 1996, while Mitt Romney was in the final years of his run as the head of Bain Capital, Barack Obama formally joined the New Party, which was deeply hostile to the mainstream of the Democratic party and even to American capitalism. In 2008, candidate Obama deceived the American public about his potentially damaging tie to this third party. The issue remains as fresh as today’s headlines, as Romney argues that Obama is trying to move the United States toward European-style social democracy, which was precisely the New Party’s goal.

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicago chapter read as follows:

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

Knowing that Obama disguised his New Party membership helps make sense of his questionable handling of the 2008 controversy over his ties to ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). During his third debate with John McCain, Obama said that the “only” involvement he’d had with ACORN was to represent the group in a lawsuit seeking to compel Illinois to implement the National Voter Registration Act, or motor-voter law. The records of Illinois ACORN and its associated union clearly contradict that assertion, as I show in my political biography of the president, Radical-in-Chief: Barack Obama and the Untold Story of American Socialism.

http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2012/06/06/wisconsin-and-california-show-that-local-taxes-are-a-political-death-trap/ Wisconsin and California Show that Local Taxes are a Political Death Trap Here’s a simple piece of arithmetic to keep in mind after Wisconsin voters overwhelmingly supported Gov. Scott Walker and California voters backed pension cuts for retired municipal workers. I reviewed some of these numbers last October in this space, and add some […]

http://pjmedia.com/lifestyle/2012/05/31/rapist-roman-polanskis-new-film-to-defend-antisemites-and-misogynists/

“Whether D will be about Roman Polanski as Dreyfus, or Muslims as the new Jews, or perhaps even both, celebrated auteur Polanski has it wrong. Dreyfus was innocent; Polanski was not. And the persecuted minority today is not Muslim but, as always, Jewish.”

Famed (and infamous) director Roman Polanski has announced that his next film project will be D, a political thriller based on the real-life tale of Alfred Dreyfus, the French Jew wrongly imprisoned for spying at the turn of the century. What drew him to the topic? Its theme of antisemitism? Perversely, it is about a persecuted minority – just not the one you might think.

The creative force behind such films as Rosemary’s Baby, Chinatown, and The Pianist among many others, Polanski pled guilty to raping an underage girl in 1977, then fled the United States for the protection of France’s non-extradition law. There his filmmaking career has thrived and he has lived the high life of a revered artist. The list of awards and honors bestowed upon him and his films is towering; he is even the recipient of France’s highest civilian honor, the Legion d’Honneur, alongside such notables as Gen. George Patton, Victor Hugo, and, coincidentally, Dreyfus himself.

Polanski and his apologists consider his fugitive status to be nothing more than petty persecution on the part of Puritanical Americans who don’t understand that a great artist should be above the law. So when Polanski was in Switzerland to attend the Zurich Film Festival in 2009 and was put temporarily under chateau arrest at the behest of the U.S., French Culture Minister Frédéric Mitterrand gave vent to melodramatic outrage:

To see him thrown to the lions and put in prison because of ancient history — and as he was traveling to an event honoring him — is absolutely horrifying. There’s an America we love and an America that scares us, and it’s that latter America that has just shown us its face.

(Mitterand should be comforted to know that back here in scary America, Polanski is still supported by Hollywood sophisticates who rush to the defense of a sex offender but who would be absolutely horrified, as Mitterand might put it, to find themselves in the same zip code with a Republican.)

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/06/grifters_on_parade.html

Obama has failed as a leader, he has failed as a statesman, and he is now failing as a fraud.

The nearly simultaneous exposure of the false claims of Elizabeth Warren to Cherokee ancestry and Obama’s to Kenyan nationality is an example of two events that are not quite a pure coincidence. While each of these episodes is causally unrelated, what we’re seeing is the same process working itself out in two distinct cases.

As all the world knows, an author’s bio written in the early ’90s stated that Barack Obama was born in Kenya. There is little or no possibility that it was printed without his knowledge. (One of the similarities between the two cases is that the institutions involved simply repeated what the principals said.) The bio made the Kenya claim because that’s what Obama told its fabricators to put down. Furthermore, the claim was allowed to stand for over a decade, being edited out only in 2006.

So what are we to make of this? With anyone else, the case would be open and shut. But as we’ve come to learn regarding Obama, there are always layers beneath layers, going all the way down to the level of the fabled turtle that holds everything up. While Obama could have made the claim because it was true, it is just as likely that he did so because it was convenient at the time or served some purpose not obvious at first glance. The one undeniable axiom concerning Obama is that he lets no opportunity to help himself out slip past unexploited.

I have always been skeptical of the Kenya birth claim because there is no positive evidence for such an occurrence. All the evidence presented thus far has been circumstantial (when not simply fabricated), pointing in several directions and capable of being matched to a number of mutually exclusive hypotheses. As is often true in such cases, the simplest, most spectacular, and most unproveable theory of them all has seized public attention.

An unfortunate side-effect of the birth debate is that it has served to mask the bulk of the undeniable questions surrounding Obama’s record, in particular his college records, which have faded almost to invisibility. In the light of the fake bio, they may well have been transformed into the most critical element of them all.

http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2012/06/911_defendants_lawfare_mocks_the_american_justice_system.html

Brooke Goldstein is a New York City-based human rights attorney, award-winning filmmaker, and media personality, and serves as director of The Lawfare Project. Skylar Curtis is an attorney, legal analyst and a research associate at The Lawfare Project.

Can an attorney demand that every woman in the courtroom dress in an “appropriate” way? What if “appropriate” means adhering to a conservative version of sharia, or Islamic law? At the May 5 arraignment of the alleged 9/11 masterminds, defense counsel asked for just that.

Cheryl Borman, representing defendant Walid bin Attash, asked the court to order the women in the courtroom to dress “appropriately” as a show of “respect” for her client’s religious beliefs. That is, Borman insinuated, women in an American courtroom should dress according to sharia law because the defendant is a Muslim. Defense counsel stated that simply looking at the prosecution team’s female members could cause him to “sin” and lose his “focus” on the trial.

In a show of passive-aggressiveness and dramatic flair, Borman accused “someone” in the courtroom of dressing improperly. While she didn’t define what attire would indeed be “appropriate,” Borman herself wore a black hijab and long black robe, showing only her face. Curiously enough, Borman is not a Muslim. However, bin Attash’s other lawyer boasted that “[o]ur client has never seen Ms. Bormann’s hair, he’s never seen her arms, he’s never seen her legs.” Coming from Borman, an accredited attorney, not only is the request to limit the garb of another legal professional to what is acceptable under sharia law in an American courtroom insulting, but it flies in the face of American values.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1284/it_s_always_the_death_of_democracy_when_the_left_loses_an_election_isn_t_it_

I’m going to take another stab at Mitt Romney’s old ‘corporations are people too’ comment which has been lobbed around as a ‘gaffe’ for many months now.

Citizens United notwithstanding, the issue of campaign finance in a democratic society is potentially one of the greatest areas in which the United Kingdom and the United States will have their respective internal battles for decades to come. Constitutional reform can only deliver so much.

I’m sure you’ve heard all the arguments before: corporations and their management are wealth and job creators, the unions fund the left as much as private enterprise backs the right – so on and so forth.

So why do we still seem to be suffering from circular thinking when it comes to campaign and political finance? While the issues have been argued out in terms of balancing the scales of justice in such an area – perhaps we have done little to address the true driving force behind such emotional thinking on the topic: morality.

A conservative will tell you that morality in this area is defined by the effort exerted by individuals or groups who have consequently earned enough to influence elections. The application of your labour or indeed the fruits of your labour in the political sphere one might argue, is a fundamental democratic right.

On the left, it is often remarked that ‘fairness’ should be paramount – that everyone should perhaps be able only to give a capped amount (actually the system that the US has in place when it comes to direct campaign funding). In the United Kingdom, this is slightly more relaxed, with individuals able to contribute vast amounts to political parties, as author JK Rowling did when she gave £1million to the Labour Party in 2010.

But throw in Super PACS, external organisations, unions, corporate sponsorships, think-tanks and all the other appendages of political activism and soon you have, on both sides of the pond, a fine mess indeed.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2012/06/06/Democrats-Join-GOP-in-Condemning-White-House-Intelligence-Military-Leaks
Legislators from both parties are condemning a string of leaks from the “highest levels” of the White House about the Osama bin Laden killing, President Barack Obama’s oversight of a terrorist “kill list,” and U.S. cooperation with Israel in creating the Stuxnet computer virus to target Iranian nuclear facilities, among others. The leaks, which always seem to make their way to selected mainstream media headlines, and which paint Obama as a tough-minded commander-in-chief, are being described as a threat to national security.

Senate Democrats, in particular, have been vocal. The Hill quotes Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Intelligence Committee: “This is like an avalanche. It is very detrimental and, candidly, I found it very concerning,” Feinstein said. “There’s no question that this kind of thing hurts our country.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, added to the criticism, saying that the leakers–whoever they may be–were acting contrary to national security: “A number of those leaks, and others in the last months about drone activities and other activities, are frankly all against national-security interests,” he said, according to The Hill. “I think they’re dangerous, damaging, and whoever is doing that is not acting in the interest of the United States of America.”